July Car & Driver Test

[FAsnakes]

OMG Drool :rolling:
Do they all come with xenon headlights or what option would that be in?

They all come with those headlights

OMG Drool :rolling:
In a nutshell, your vette is exactly what Id buy as well, good choice :beer:

Thanks, it really is a dream. :thumbsup:

Do you have the z51 option? I hear its got a better rear gear, which really interests me

Nope I have the Magnetic Selective Ride Control :rolling:

 

[bunk22]

Do you have the z51 option? I hear its got a better rear gear, which really interests me

I've the got the Z51 optioned C6 and the gearing is a bit better than the non Z51 option but the performance in a straight line is very close regardless.

.....and yes, FAsnakes C6 looks great....and I'm biased ;-)

 

[bubbrubb]

i have my 03 redfire cobra coupe #5171 of 8394 for sale. 2800 miles, no rain no snow, CAI, pro 50 shifter and magna flow cat back. one time at 1/4 mile track, 12.88 sec. @111.02 mph.
$29500
1FSTHRSE
:rockon:

My Mineral Grey Metallic Cobra with 18K miles is for sale for 30K. It's #85 of 8394 coupes produced in '03.

I have my car for sale - see sig - $55K

First off, thank you for some of the only factual posts that the gt500 forum has seen yet :rockon:

maybe I'm crazy, but I think that I would be better off buying the gt500 (getting it at msrp) if I can drive my car for 3 years then sell it for a little under what I bought it for, even if it doesn't make my pants rise a little when I look at it :shrug: :read:

 

[Purvis]

For comparisons sake, 4 years ago,
Car and Driver went 12.4@116 in the $49,000 2002 ZO6.
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=16&article_id=3325&page_number=1

 

[03Terminator]

I love this, one car mag prints less than stellar performance figures and every one writes the car off. oke: Wait till a few car mags test the car and print their results.

 

[chuckstang]

Does anyone remember how long it takes to actually be able to post on corvetteforum because I registered earlier today and I can log in and look around but that is it, I cant reply or contact anyone.
Did I need to do anything special, or does it just take a day or 2
thx

 

[magred]

Well regardless of how well the drivers are, you have the same variable in the driver. If you had different drivers then you could say that it was due to drivers but since you have the same driver it is a wash. Yes, the C6 drivers are getting better times than those listed but then again the Shelby will get better times as well. But given that the driver was the same in both cars the as stated it is a "constant" just like in any equation. Well, the good thing is that they are almost here.

 

[magred]

Does anyone remember how long it takes to actually be able to post on corvetteforum because I registered earlier today and I can log in and look around but that is it, I cant reply or contact anyone.
Did I need to do anything special, or does it just take a day or 2
thx

I can't remember how long it takes but I think it should be right away unless there has to ebe moderator approval. Most are approved by software right away. You may check and see if they sent you an email with a login or something. I look forward to seeing your posts over there.

 

[MedVader]

And the fanboys keep rationalizing...

"Well.. uh.. there's C6 owners running faster than 12.8@112... yup uh huh.. yup."

Whoopteedamndoo. :bored:

There were '03 Cobra owners running 12.4s bone stock 3 years ago too.

The point is the RELATIVE comparison of 4 cars.

'03/'04 Cobra
C5
GT500
C6

3 years ago you got a high 12s Cobra that was FASTER than a vette for $12K less.

Today you get a high 12s Cobra that is about as fast as a vette for about the same price.

Anyone see anything pathetic about those factual observations?


And 111mph is going to be 111mph over and over again no matter how bad the test driver is. And that is weak sauce.

Sh*t if it had run 12.9@120 I'd be crackin my piggy bank open and running down to my local Ford dealership tonight.

 

[mc01svt]

I'm not a fan boy cause I'm not getting the car either way (like my 03 too much) but the GT500 has a 9lbs per hp ratio compared to the 03's 9.8lbs per hp ratio. 1 lbs per hp difference is quite a bit, the Shelby should be running atleast a half a second faster solid than the 03 Cobra times the mag is posting about it, despite the 250lbs difference in weight. Lets give the car time to circulate to guys who know what they are doing and then make the call.

yeah that makes perfect sense on paper but not in the real world. Traction will be an issue!! You cannot push 500hp through 285mm tires :bash: And that heavy motor pushing down on the front end will do no good.

Is there any other front engine, rwd car in the world w/ 500hp and only 285mm tires? No!!! All that hp is going up in smoke and everyone in the world knows it accept for ford and the blue oval nut swingers

hp means nothing w/out traction and greyhound don't float on water :idea:

I will agree that the GT500 may be 4-5tenths faster with drag radials tho'

 

[Ry_Trapp0]

i would be willing to bet that them mega-power mercedes cars are running on about 285s. probably the cadillac STS-V/CTS-V too. and them bimmer M cars also. traction is controlled by the driver(or computer in the case of most of these cars), not the tire size.

 

[Captain Beyond]

You guys make me laugh. :lol1: One mag test and these #s are gospel? No doubt these are horrible #s for both cars, NOT just the GT500. Only 1/10 & 1 mph separates these 2 cars? That makes this a driver's race between both cars. I can live with that. :coolman:
Aren't C6s capable of much better times with good driving? I'm sure with a capable driver (Evan Smith), the GT500 will post similar times.
I think what some here fail to see is that despite these bad #s, the GT500 will hang with the C6 - a driver's race.
BTW, isn't this the same mag that tested a C6Z06 last year and ran something like a 12.6 @ 116?

 

[satx]

BTW, isn't this the same mag that tested a C6Z06 last year and ran something like a 12.6 @ 116? :-D

I think that was R&T.....Car and Driver I believe was the 11.5 @ 127.

 

[G. El Dorado]

Yeah and they later said they printed C5 Z times by mistake.

 

[COBRA32]

This is a sad day almost $10,000 more than the 03-04 Cobra's not counting the EBAY markup and it turns in the same times whats up with that. Ford f**k this one really bad, 500 horsepower and alot more torque than a M5 BMW and the BMW will outrun it too, not to mention the AMG 55 4 door Merecedes too. Either Ford lied about the horsepower and its 1999 again or thats one slow ass GT500. I have been looking forward to this car and what a let down. Us Ford guys are screwed for that much money it should have beaten the reg. C6 in a striaght line," but I did not expect it to run with the C6 Z06" but should have out run the reg C6 in at least the striaght line. I hope this was a fluke or something. I do not know what to do now. I guess I could get a base 2007 GT spend 20,000 dollars and still have money left over and be a hell of alot faster. I would buy it on a x-plan only its to much money for so little performance at MSRP. So to outrun a reg C6 I will have to void my warranty on a 40,000 + car thats not for me, maybe I will have too buy a C6, I can not believe I said that! Whats this world coming too a when Ford guy says something like that. :nonono:

 

[AbusiveWombat]

Well regardless of how well the drivers are, you have the same variable in the driver. If you had different drivers then you could say that it was due to drivers but since you have the same driver it is a wash. Yes, the C6 drivers are getting better times than those listed but then again the Shelby will get better times as well. But given that the driver was the same in both cars the as stated it is a "constant" just like in any equation. Well, the good thing is that they are almost here.

Amen. BTW, this information isn't a big surprise. A year ago you could tell that the GT500 and C6 were going to be close due to the similar power to weight ratios. I don't know why everyone is so shocked.

C6: 3179 # / 400 hp = 7.94 # / hp

GT500
2005: 3800 # / 475 hp = 8.00 #/hp (est.)
2006: 3920 # / 500 hp = 7.84 #/hp

The slight advantage that the GT500 has is likely negated due to the aerodynamic differences.

 

[mc01svt]

i would be willing to bet that them mega-power mercedes cars are running on about 285s. probably the cadillac STS-V/CTS-V too. and them bimmer M cars also. traction is controlled by the driver(or computer in the case of most of these cars), not the tire size.

Those heavy benzes have much more weight over the rear tires not to mention the most technically advanced traction control systems in the world

 

[chuckstang]

Amen. BTW, this information isn't a big surprise. A year ago you could tell that the GT500 and C6 were going to be close due to the similar power to weight ratios. I don't know why everyone is so shocked.

C6: 3179 # / 400 hp = 7.94 # / hp

GT500
2005: 3800 # / 475 hp = 8.00 #/hp (est.)
2006: 3920 # / 500 hp = 7.84 #/hp

The slight advantage that the GT500 has is likely negated due to the aerodynamic differences.

Im an idiot I guess but 7.84 is better then 7.94...correct????
Basically it means there is 7.84 pounds for each hp right?

 

[Fourcam330]

FWIW, GT500: 3896lbs/500hp= 7.79lbs/hp and you are correct chuckstang.

 

[Formula51]

You guys make me laugh. :lol1: One mag test and these #s are gospel? No doubt these are horrible #s for both cars, NOT just the GT500. Only 1/10 & 1 mph separates these 2 cars? That makes this a driver's race between both cars. I can live with that. :coolman:
Aren't C6s capable of much better times with good driving? I'm sure with a capable driver (Evan Smith), the GT500 will post similar times.
I think what some here fail to see is that despite these bad #s, the GT500 will hang with the C6 - a driver's race.
BTW, isn't this the same mag that tested a C6Z06 last year and ran something like a 12.6 @ 116? :-D

So you are laughing at everyone for believing these numbers like they are the gospel, yet you say that these are "bad #'s" for the GT500. And how do you know that?

As for the Evan Smith comments many have made, of course he will run faster, faster than any magazine and faster than any of YOU. All his times show you is what the car is capable of, assuming he is running in good conditions.

Car and Driver and Motor Trend are pretty good at showing you what a slightly above average driver will run in good conditions (for most cars, which included the 03/04 Cobra). So far the result looks like high 12's and we will have to wait for MotorTrend's numbers to verify this.

I am very dissapointed and am hoping the article says something regarding smoking the tires real bad off the line, or having to leave from idle to avoid doing so. Has anyone read the article that can comment on this?????